Abstract:BackgroundThe rehabilitation of fully edentulous atrophic maxillae can be challenging. The missing dentition can be replaced by dentures, which may not always be appreciated by patients for their instability, discomfort and negative psychological impact. The ideal solution would be an implant‐supported prosthesis, however the lack of adequate bone volumes to place at least four dental implants of sufficient length due to advanced bone resorption could be a problem.Aim/HypothesisTo evaluate whether short (5–8.5 mm) dental implants could be a suitable alternative to longer (at least 11.5 mm‐long) implants placed in atrophic fully edentulous maxillae augmented with autogenous bone for supporting dental prostheses.Material and MethodsTwenty‐eight patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae having 5–9 mm of residual crestal bone height at least 5 mm thick, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two groups either to receive four to eight short (5–8.5 mm) implants (15 patients) or autogenous bone from the iliac crest to allow the placement of at least 11.5 mm‐long implants (13 patients). Both bone blocks and windows at lifted maxillary sinuses were covered with rigid resorbable barriers. Grafts were left to heal for 4 months before placing implants, which were submerged. After 4 months, provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses or bar retained overdentures were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive screw‐retained metal‐resin cross‐arch restorations. Outcome measures were‐ augmentation, prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, peri‐implant marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction. Patients were followed up to 5 years after loading.ResultsAll patients could be rehabilitated with implant‐supported prostheses but four patients dropped‐out from the augmented group and three from the short implant group. One bilateral sinus lift procedure failed for infection, though short implants could be placed. Four implants failed in four patients of the augmented group versus three short implants in three patients (Fishers exact test, P = 0.6500). All failures occurred before loading. No prosthesis failed. Significantly more complications occurred in augmented patients‐ 12 complications occurred in nine augmented patients versus one complication in the short implant group (Fishers exact test, P = 0.0003). Periapical radiographs of only four patients were available, so no bone level could be measured at 5 years after loading. With the only exception of three patients of the augmented group who were partially satisfied for function, all remaining patients were fully satisfied and all would do the treatment again. Conclusion and Clinical ImplicationsThis study showed that for patients with fully edentulous atrophic maxillae short implants can be a preferable alternative to longer implants placed in bone augmented with autogenous bone, being the treatment less invasive, associated with less complications, cheaper and faster.

Four‐mm‐short implants in the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws: A retrospective study on 212 patients with a mean follow‐up of 8.02 years

Clinical Evaluation of Short and Wide-Diameter Implants Immediately Placed into Extraction Sockets of Posterior Areas: A 2-Year Retrospective Study

Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

Clinical and Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Rehabilitation of Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla Using Six Implants Placed Simultaneously with Bilateral Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Case Series.

Implant Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss with the All-on-4 Immediate-Loading Strategy: A Clinical Retrospective Study with 1 to 4 Years of Follow-Up.

A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographical Prospective Study

Short implants versus bone augmentation in atrophic maxillae: Five‐year post‐loading results from a RCT

Retrospective Study on the Clinical Outcomes of Small-Diameter Implants Supporting Fixed Prostheses Without Bone Augmentation in the Posterior Region after 2 to 12 Years

A Prospective, Multicentre Study of 6-Mm Short Implants in Posterior Alveolar Bone Supporting Splinted Crowns: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.

Implant survival rate and marginal bone loss of 174 implants with different variables associated over a minimum observational period of 20 years: A retrospective study

Short and ultra‐short (<6‐mm) locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas (part II): A 5‐year retrospective study on periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis

Clinical Performance of Short Expandable Dental Implants for Oral Rehabilitation in Highly Atrophic Alveolar Bone: 3-year Results of a Prospective Single-Center Cohort Study

Short (6 mm) and Regular Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla–7-Years Follow-up Study

A prospective, multi-center study assessing early loading with short implants in posterior regions. A 3-year post-loading follow-up study.

Predictability of short implants ( < 10 mm) as a treatment option for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. A systematic review

Single crown restorations supported by 6‐mm implants in the resorbed posterior mandible: A 10‐year prospective case series

A Prospective Study on the Application of 6-Mm-long Implants in the Upper and Lower Posterior Edentulous Regions

Long-term outcomes of short dental implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a clinical retrospective study of 5-10 years.

Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues Conditions around Short and Ultra-Short Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A 3-Year Retrospective Study on Periodontally Healthy Patients and Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease

Are short implants (≤8.5 mm) reliable in the rehabilitation of completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ten‐Year Follow‐Up of Oral Implants in Bone With Limited Bucco‐Oral Dimensions: A Prospective Case Series